alt Hacker NewsI have never understood this argument. Rust, by default, is safer. This is trivially true. But it also is not perfect.
This entire argument against Rust hinges on it somehow invalidating all of the improvements it does have, all the safety it does guarantee, just because it also has a few bugs. It's neither a myth that Rust is safer, nor is it a nail in the coffin for it.
Otherwise you must make the argument that just because unsafe exists, and is used, it is automatically as bad as let's say C - a language that has proven time and time again how trivial it is to make mistakes with. Something that just doesn't happen in Rust.
Replies
The annoyance comes from the fact that your kind of _reasonable_ discourse on safety is always thrown when there is a bug, but never when there is a claim that rust is 100% by construction. I.e. It's always a defensive argument, but I never see someone step up to mention it on overly optimistic claims.
Funny. I would think a GCed language was safer - maybe Haskell being the safest of all (outside even more niche languages) for its ability to encode so much in the type system.
Yet, for some curious reason, a substantial group of snake oil salesmen insist that only this one particularly cut puzzle piece (rust) fits the bill.
In addition to that, many of reported soundness issues rely on adversarial implementations for stdlib' traits by user's types, like Borrow::borrow or as_ref returning different value between back to back calls. You would do that if you try to break compiler, but not when writing regular programs.